Anonymous wrote:OP here. Interesting points and all seem valid re: the differences between boy and girl systems in the US. Girls have first-mover advantages here and don't really need homegrown systems to flourish. On the boys side, I don't think the US will ever be a top 8 world team (put aside quarterfinal World Cup finishes - that is always luck of the draw and Turkey and South Korea have been recent semifinalists). And all but may be one or two kids per year in this area would have a real shot at being good pro players in MLS or otherwise. But if the MLS academies get it right on the boys side, and become legitimate magnets and funnels for real talent, and then see attractive returns from transfer fees, I cannot help but think there will be trickle down effects on the boys side, regardless of what leagues boys choose to play in from year to year. The interesting point to me was that top-level teams may have more cushion to develop players that do not necessarily add immediate value at, say, U13 or U14 (irrelevant for DCU since they don't begin play until U15, but perhaps the same principle applies even at that later age). This article made it sound like Philly Union was in a better position to develop this player appropriately because it is an MLS academy, and had the incentive to do so because of the transfer fees. The reason I think that is controversial is that I bet my bottom dollar that the kid could have played two or three years up despite his lack of size and speed. But that does not sound like what they did with him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Interesting points and all seem valid re: the differences between boy and girl systems in the US. Girls have first-mover advantages here and don't really need homegrown systems to flourish. On the boys side, I don't think the US will ever be a top 8 world team (put aside quarterfinal World Cup finishes - that is always luck of the draw and Turkey and South Korea have been recent semifinalists). And all but may be one or two kids per year in this area would have a real shot at being good pro players in MLS or otherwise. But if the MLS academies get it right on the boys side, and become legitimate magnets and funnels for real talent, and then see attractive returns from transfer fees, I cannot help but think there will be trickle down effects on the boys side, regardless of what leagues boys choose to play in from year to year. The interesting point to me was that top-level teams may have more cushion to develop players that do not necessarily add immediate value at, say, U13 or U14 (irrelevant for DCU since they don't begin play until U15, but perhaps the same principle applies even at that later age). This article made it sound like Philly Union was in a better position to develop this player appropriately because it is an MLS academy, and had the incentive to do so because of the transfer fees. The reason I think that is controversial is that I bet my bottom dollar that the kid could have played two or three years up despite his lack of size and speed. But that does not sound like what they did with him.

Playing 2 or 3 years up is not a substitute for playing at a well-run academy.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Interesting points and all seem valid re: the differences between boy and girl systems in the US. Girls have first-mover advantages here and don't really need homegrown systems to flourish. On the boys side, I don't think the US will ever be a top 8 world team (put aside quarterfinal World Cup finishes - that is always luck of the draw and Turkey and South Korea have been recent semifinalists). And all but may be one or two kids per year in this area would have a real shot at being good pro players in MLS or otherwise. But if the MLS academies get it right on the boys side, and become legitimate magnets and funnels for real talent, and then see attractive returns from transfer fees, I cannot help but think there will be trickle down effects on the boys side, regardless of what leagues boys choose to play in from year to year. The interesting point to me was that top-level teams may have more cushion to develop players that do not necessarily add immediate value at, say, U13 or U14 (irrelevant for DCU since they don't begin play until U15, but perhaps the same principle applies even at that later age). This article made it sound like Philly Union was in a better position to develop this player appropriately because it is an MLS academy, and had the incentive to do so because of the transfer fees. The reason I think that is controversial is that I bet my bottom dollar that the kid could have played two or three years up despite his lack of size and speed. But that does not sound like what they did with him.

Anonymous wrote:That was a good read, thanks. One thing that comes to mind for me, is that this kind of home grown development by pro clubs is not nearly as common on the girls side, and yet, the country is hugely successful at the WNT level, and is producing lots of stars. The soccer economy for women is markedly different, and so is the development pathway. There is more than one way here.